Search

Find Us On

A recent Associated Press article cites "an ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted July 18-21" that showed "that 32 percent of those who said they leaned Republican described themselves as 'uncomfortable' with the idea of a Mormon president.

An earlier poll by the Pew Research Center said 30 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that was Mormon. The negative sentiment rose to 46 percent for Muslim candidates and to 63 percent for a candidate who "doesn't believe in God."

Pollster Andrew Kohut, Pew's director, said that between the late 1960s, when Romney's father ran, and now there has been "one of the great transformations of our era. There is more mixing of religion and politics than there was then. As a consequence, people scrutinize Mormonism — or any other religion — more closely than back then."

He cites the growing influence of the Christian right, the political activism of tele-evangelists and a trend that has seen a steady migration of Christian conservatives into the GOP fold, particularly in the South.

It is noteworthy that more Republicans are uncomfortable with a theoretical candidate who would disbelieve in a supreme being, most likely due to lack of evidence, than a very non-theoretical one (Mitt Romney) who apparently professes adherence to notions including the brotherhood of Jesus and Satan and the magical gift by an angel named Moroni of a new and improved version of the bible to Joseph Smith Jr. in upstate New York in 1823.

Pollster Kohut's summary above is apt, including the emphasis on "Christian conservatives." Christians aren't doctrinally Mormon. Thus we have this other article: "Conference aims to counter attacks on LDS doctrine, history," in the Salt Lake Tribune. Attacks from Christian conservatices, mostly. Mitt Romney wants to be president; a lot of his fellow Mormons would like him to be president, too. But that's unlikely unless Mormonism can be seen by the masses of GOP-voting evangelicals as being something acceptable, and not a demonic cult. In the end, Romney may claim strongly enough to dislike abortion providers, Democrats, gay Americans, atheists, and the French that evangelical Christians will organize and vote for him: first to be nominee, then in the general election. Let's see if the conferences and LDS apologetics work. But somehow, I don't foresee the appearance of "Have you hugged a Mormon today?" bumper stickers in mega-church parking lots anytime soon, unless they're printed as a call to evangelization. But even being an evangelist to Mormons certainly doesn't require voting for any.

Yet another day, yet another great post from Broadsheet. This one provides yet another example of yet another act of heartless government policy inspired by moralistic religiosity. Conservative politico-religiosity: that is the Religious Right's comfortable waters, and they flood in often at the expense of healing and science.

A couple of weeks back we wrote about how the Bush administration has allocated two-thirds of funding for preventing the sexual transmission of AIDS in Africa to abstinence programs. (No matter how many times you say it, it never fails to amaze: Fighting AIDS with abstinence.) Well, surprise! It turns out it's not working so well, according to President Bush's chief advisor on HIV and AIDS. Speaking at the International AIDS Society conference in Sydney, Australia, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said: "For every one person that you put in therapy, six new people get infected. So we're losing that game, the numbers game."

There's more. Monday, the Public Library of Science reported that researchers have found another major problem with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): In order to receive funding, organizations must take a pledge against prostitution.

Fighting HIV/AIDS wasn't a high priority when the Religious Right--as a growing political force--pushed a moralism affecting the thoughts and actions of political leaders like Ronald Reagan (but plenty of others, too, both Republican and Democrat). AIDS was a "fag disease," not a disease. HIV was considered to be not a virus, but a de facto supernatural phenomenon: a wage of "sin," a means by which a heavenly being exterminates a subset of American citizenry who are defined largely by others' over-emphasis on the subset's sexual preferences--those preferences being not insignificant but, reasonably speaking, hardly the principle aspect of their total personhood.

Then AIDS became a "nigger disease," but not a disease. HIV was still considered to be not a virus, but still a de facto supernatural phenomenon: a wage of "sin," a means by which God exterminates a subset of American citizenry defined by their drug-use or presence in American prisons.

Ah, but then enough people began to realize that HIV/AIDS affected kids, too. And hemophiliacs. These people were "innocent;" thus, HIV/AIDS started to be referred to as a "tragedy."

Now HIV/AIDS has been affecting people globally, especially women in Africa, for many years. (Are they "innocent" enough to warrant help, though? Ask a moralistic religionist.) Yet, political leaders like George W Bush (but plenty of others, too) with the sort of moralism-driven medical illogic that sickens (as it were) the vast majority of medical professionals, still refuse to truly fight HIV/AIDS. They use the disease to score political points: they "fight" it with strings attached, and make the strings more important than the thing itself, strings likeabstinence pledges or crusades to stop prostitution. If you're a poverty-stricken mother in a poor African or Asian nation with few options and a lot of desperation, you may just be out of luck. And heaven forbid that condoms be distributed. After all, condoms help, as opposed to scold, so they aren't good enough; just ask a moralistic religionist.

Fraces FitzGerald's article in The New York Review of Books, "The Evangelical Surprise," is an examination of areas of disagreement and tension within the evangelcials of American "Christian right politics," particularly between the majority of evangelicals and so-called "Centerist" evangelicals. But in describing these "Centerists," FitzGerald shows us that there's no real surprise at all: the "Centerists" are conservatives, too.

FitzGerald cites some facts: American evangelicals "make up a quarter of the [US] population—around 75 million people." In 2000, 68% of them "voted for George Bush; in 2004, 78 percent of them did." And:

Last summer, polls showed that the war in Iraq, corruption, and the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina had brought the evangelicals' approval ratings for Bush and the GOP down by twenty points in just two years. But on the last Election Day they turned out in their usual numbers, and over 70 percent of them voted for Republican congressional candidates. White evangelicals have, in other words, become the GOP's most reliable constituency, and they normally provide about a third of the Republican votes.

FitzGerald writes of these "traditionalist" evangelicals, but also, briefly, the statistically insignificant "modernists," too, before delving deeply into the "Centrists." The "modernists" are "defined as those who go to church infrequently and don't hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But, here are the so-called "Centerists" for you: the likes of

Rich Nathan, for example, the senior pastor of the Vineyard Church of Columbus, Ohio [who] preaches that the Christian message cannot be reduced to issues of sex or private morality, and that the emphasis should be on Jesus' teachings about the poor and about peace-making.

And this is Centerism: no changing of the mind about issues of sex or private morality, but that perhaps Christians' focus ought to be on things Jesus of Nazareth seemed to consider comparatively more important.

We're offered the examples of Reverend Gregory Boyd and Dr. Joel Hunter. They also preach that evangelicals should spend energies on helping the poor. And then there's Rick Warren, leader of Saddleback Church in California. He cares about the poor, too, we're told. But he's also a Creationist, as he's stated at least once recently, in a Newsweek.

In the end, the surprise is underwhelming: divisions exist within evangelicaldom...except, of course, where they don't. And the implications of the divisions for the religious right are basically nil. This is a reality that FitzGerald notes: "The defection of the centrist leaders from the religious right's agenda has thus far had no obvious effect on the evangelical vote."

There are disagreements over political tactics, even theology, and new (for evangelicals) issues like the environment, but there is no disagreement on women's reproductive rights (opposed to it), on rights for gay Americans (opposed to it), or--especially--on which political party is the one to vote for (Republican).

Chip Berlet on Talk To Action calls raises the alarm that some Democratic politicians seem increasingly ready to compromise with the religious right. In response, he's authored a pledge (that I very slightly re-worked below from "We" to "I" language) that he encourages you--if you are a progressive who votes Democrat--to send to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via their contact page: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues; fill in the contact form with your e-mail and Zip Code; then paste the pledge into the “Questions” box.

"Human Rights are Not Political Commodities" - the pledge:

I understand the same First Amendment that guarantees separation of church and state guarantees the rights of Christian conservatives to defend their views in the public square, and to seek redress of grievances through a variety of political and social channels.

In recent months, however, I have seen indications that some in the leadership of the Democratic Party, and some of its candidates for public office, are seeking the votes of Christian conservatives by suggesting there is room to compromise on reproductive rights and gay rights.

While public debates over social issues are a sign of a healthy democracy; we do not believe is proper for politicians to negotiate away basic human rights for any group of people in the United States.

The problem is not "abortion" or "reducing the number of abortions." The problem is unwanted pregnancies, how to prevent them, and how to support women who get pregnant in the decisions they deem appropriate. This includes access to legal and safe contraception and abortion; as well as access to health care and child care for women who choose to give birth and raise children—concepts seen as fundamental rights in other industrialized countries. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors who are women, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.

The problem is not "gay rights" or "gay marriage." The problem is building a society where the basic human rights of all people are respected and defended. Under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no such thing as "Special Rights." When some Christian conservatives claim that gay people want "Special Rights," it is a falsehood. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors in LGBTQ communities, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.

I intend to vote in the upcoming elections in 2008, and we intend to vote for candidates who make it crystal clear that they support basic human rights for all. I will pay special attention to fellow Democrats who have through words or actions objectively undermined basic human rights for women, the LGBTQ communities, or any other group in our republic's great society.

Salon.com's advice column recently featured a letter--given by Salon the provocative and rather misleading title, "Is Atheism Dead?"--from a 38-year-old with questions about atheism and faith. The responses to the letter make for an interesting read. (No matter who you are, your reactions to the various letters in reply will probably range from infuriated to encouraged.)

[T]he idea of no God at all...explained that all of the horrific things in life were for reasons other than "God's will" or variations thereof. [Such existentialism] means that we aren't chess pieces in the cosmos.... It also means that acts of goodness aren't bargaining chips for heaven -- they are Meaning Itself.

This to me...means every moment counts, it means we (all of humanity) create most aspects of the world we live in, it means we are often our brother's keeper and that compassion is crucial toward understanding the human condition. Create meaning by helping people or contributing to the world - 'God' certainly won't do it for you. The shock you feel is the realization of this fact.

I'm not sure my prayers are heard by a Higher Power, but I do know that focusing on my problem/needs through prayer often and visualizing solutions is helpful in and of itself.... I'm way too lazy to go to Church every Sunday, but when I go, I find it refreshing to be in a big room full of people who share the common goal of learning to be more loving and generous to one another and the rest of humanity.

The religious right's influence on American foreign and domestic policy is a cause of America's worsening reputation abroad and a threat to America's security.

A recent commentary on Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald strikingly summarizes the profound decline in the the United States' reputation among the nations of the world. The chart that he cites from a Pew Global Attitudes Project report says it all. (Click on the chart to enlarge it.)

He writes that

The widespread respect America commanded and the admiration for our values was, prior to George W. Bush, a vital ingredient of our national security and ability to protect our interests. (Emphasis mine.)

Greenwald is correct on both points: that our standing has dropped abroad since George W. Bush's election and that the decline itself represents a compromise of our national security.

Greenwald rightly identifies that a "good versus evil" mentality cripples the Bush administration, and that it is a mentality with religious and political origins.

Among the sources of the Bush administration's mentality--among the sources for many of the administration's excesses--there is a religio-political movement to which a line can be clearly traced:the religious right.

With the religious right's influence on the Republican Party--beginning in the 1970's, growing over a course of years, and still strong today--anti-intellectualism, provincialism, biblical and even messianic rhetoric, dualistic ("good versus evil") moralism, and even American exceptionalism all grew stronger within the GOP, and with the election of George W. Bush, became to much of the rest of the globe all but synonymous with American ideals. In not only the rhetoric of many Republicans, but in their policies, especially those of the Republicans of the Bush administration, there have been for several years and continue to be words and deeds enough that reflect the agenda of the religious right and that alienate a wide range of nations and cultures.

The Bush administration's foreign policy has been marked by not just arrogance and mismanagement, but specifically by a pro-Israel-right-or-wrong stance, numerous rejections of international organizations and agreements, attacks against science, including medical science (as demonstrated by the administration's resistance to safe-sex education and global distain for women's health issues), and ecology. All of these things directly reflect the emphases and obsessions of the religious right since the late 1970's and early 1980's--emphases and obsessions usually justified by specific interpretations of biblical passages about "End Times"--including notions such as (to name just one of them) the Antichrist using multi-national organizations, like the United Nations or even a united Europe, to dominate a world eager and ready (thanks to secularism, of course).

The election of George W. Bush is arguably a milestone in the religious right's efforts. A milestone, but it really ought to be a millstone. Americans dedicated to reason, truth-telling, and the liberal ideals of our republic's founders should not let the religious right off lightly when it comes to the George W. Bush legacy, when it comes to the religious right's worldview as being a wellspring of much of what may make the Bush legacy a "tragic" one

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.